"[Cameron and Kane LLC's] wage-theft lawsuit remains active in federal court, with a status hearing set for March 14. Two of Tadros' prior attorneys withdrew from the case, citing his failure to pay their fees, according to court documents.

Scott Kane, an attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of 10 former Bow Truss employees, said via email: "After a year of slogging through three different defense counsels, two bankruptcy proceedings, and numerous missed litigation deadlines, we remain steadfast and resolutely committed" to the effort. "We took this case knowing it was going to be a grind from day one."

The other bankruptcy proceeding Kane references was an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed by Michelle Spooner, Tadros' ex-wife, in February 2017."

"Soon after announcing he would take on Berrios for the Democratic nomination for county assessor, challenger Fritz Kaegi says he noticed someone had set up websites purporting to represent him and his rage-against-the-machine campaign. But Kaegi says he had nothing to do with the new FritzKaegi.org website. [...]

So Kaegi hired [Cameron & Kane, LLC] who filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court to find out who was essentially impersonating him online. [...]

“We were trying to find out who is falsely insinuating a connection to the campaign,” attorney Scott Kane said. [...]

Galvin failed to show up for a deposition, Kaegi’s lawyers say. On Thursday, they asked a judge to order him to appear and answer their questions on Feb. 14."

Yesterday, on behalf of our client Frederick "Fritz" Kaegi, Cameron & Kane, LLC filed a defamation lawsuit against Cook County Assessor and Democratic Party Chairman Joseph Berrios as well as Berrios’ committee for reelection. The lawsuit arises from a series of radio and television political advertisements published by Berrios’ committee which state, among other things, that (a) Kaegi, in his capacity as an investment fund’s manager, personally invested in private for-profit prison companies; and (b) Kaegi personally profited from said investments.

Cameron & Kane, LLC’s lawsuit alleges not only that these statements are false, but also that the Berrios’ committee either knew the statements to be false or acted with reckless disregard of their falsity. In support, the lawsuit’s complaint attaches a host of publicly available documents from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fund’s investments and an affidavit from Kaegi himself, both of which show that the fund never invested in private for-profit prison companies during Kaegi’s tenure.

Earlier this year, Fritz Kaegi, a candidate for Cook County Assessor running against incumbent Joe Berrios, discovered several fake websites which use photos of himself and his family to inaccurately infer an association with his campaign. In reality, these fake websites have no actual relationship to Mr. Kaegi of his campaign and were created without his knowledge, direction, or consent. The fake websites even go so far as to (1) ask for fundraising donations; (b) solicit email addresses and communications of people interested in volunteering; and (c) make reference to "orgies."

Concerned with both the content and false insinuations of these fake websites, Mr. Kaegi retained Cameron & Kane, LLC to get to the bottom of it.

Earlier today, Cameron & Kane, LLC filed an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 Petition on behalf of Mr. Kaegi to do just that. The Petition, filed in the Law Division of Circuit Court of Cook County, seeks the court’s permission to subpoena the hosts of the various fake websites, which include Go Daddy, Facebook, Twitter, and CrowdPAC, and force them to turnover the identity of their owners.

Once the identity of the fake website owners has been discovered, Cameron & Kane, LLC will be representing Mr. Kaegi in any legal action against them that he may deem necessary including, inter alia, an action under the Illinois Right to Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.).

Scott Kane, a Cameron & Kane, LLC Member and small business attorney, was recently invited to guest lecture at DePaul University’s Class on Entrepreneurship. The class is taught by Levi Baer, Adjunct Professor and small business owner.

The lecture comprised of three segments.

First, Mr. Kane walked the class through his basic biography. Describing his path from studying Economics and Sociology at the University of Michigan, to working at the non-profit Center for Economic Progress, to studying law at Northwestern University School of Law, to starting Cameron & Kane, LLC after being admitted to practice law.

Second, Mr. Kane gave a brief synopsis of “Startup Basic Legal Concerns.” Within this segment Mr. Kane addressed some of the common sources of legal liability a small business may face in its operation. Mr. Kane outlined the basics of contract, tort, and statutory liability with common examples provided for each. Attendees were encourage to consider the nature and extent of their nascent businesses' potential liability.

Lastly, Mr. Kane answered questions about his expediences as an entrepreneur and small business owner. The students asked him questions ranging from the pragmatic, to the professional, to the personal.

If you'd like an attorney from Cameron & Kane, LLC to speak at a class or event of yours, do not hesitate to contact our office. 872-588-0727

In March of 2016, Cameron & Kane, LLC was retained by a tenant residing in the Hermosa neighborhood of Chicago. This client had been a dutiful tenant in the same building for over eight years when – through no fault of her own – the property went through foreclosure and was purchased by a new owner. After taking title, this new owner of the building had failed to notify her of her rights under law and, instead, forced her to move out of the home she had known for almost a decade.

After hearing her story, Cameron & Kane, LLC sprung into action and filed a lawsuit shortly thereafter. After extensive investigation of the complex facts and law underlying the matter, Cameron & Kane, LLC filed a “Motion for Summary Judgement” to resolve the lawsuit on their client’s behalf. A “Motion for Summary Judgment” is an extraordinary remedy which totally resolves a lawsuit without an actual trial being conducted. Motions for Summary Judgment often require extensive written and oral arguments in addition to conclusive factual proofs of the claim presented.

Today, after eighteen months of dedicated representation, Cameron & Kane, LLC is proud to report that our Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and our client has received a judgment for maximal damages under the applicable law. We are confident that this judgment will help compensate our client for the costs, heartache, and inconvenience of being unlawfully uprooted and relocated from her home.

In July of 2014, a large multi-national bank became the owner of a Chicago residential rental property pursuant to a judicial foreclosure sale. Within a year, the bank began filing lawsuits under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (“eviction lawsuits”) against the tenants within the property. Historically, eviction lawsuits are a special “summary proceeding” wherein “no matters not germane to the distinctive purpose of the proceeding shall be introduced.” Meier v. Hilton, 257 Ill. 174, 100 N.E. 520 (1912); 735 ILCS 5/9-106.

One of the tenants responded to the eviction lawsuit by arguing the bank’s violation of her Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (“KCRO”) rights was both (1) an affirmative defense to the eviction lawsuit; and (2) the basis for a counterclaim for damages. Ultimately, the Circuit Court decided against the tenant’s interpretation of the KCRO was incorrect and the tenant was forced to appeal.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court and unambiguously found in favor of the tenant in both their contentions. The Appellate Court held that the bank’s noncompliance with the KCRO was a “closely allied” issue “germane” to the eviction lawsuit. As such, KCRO noncompliance was both a “viable [affirmative] defense” and a valid counterclaim to eviction lawsuits. The Appellate Court noted that this holding was a necessity under law because the KCRO requires tenants to “bring a claim for relocation assistance prior to the entry of a judgment of possession of the rental unit.”

Cameron & Kane, LLC has been advocating for the “germane-ness” of the KCRO as an affirmative defense and counterclaim to eviction lawsuits from our first day of practice within the field. We wholeheartedly agree with the Appellate Court’s reasoning and look forward to future citation of this important opinion.

In January of 2016, Cameron & Kane, LLC was retained by a client upon the referral of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. Shortly thereafter, we filed suit on behalf of our client for violation of their rights under the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (“KCRO”).

The defendant, a multi-national bank and financial institution, responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming the KCRO was preempted - made unenforceable - by the Illinois Rent Control Preemption Act (“RCPA”) because it constitutes “rent control.” To our surprise, the Judge issued an order wherein they agreed with the bank and found that the entirety of the KCRO was preempted and unenforceable because a single clause. While this order lacked explicit precedential authority, the opinion held the possibility of persuading other Circuit Court judges to follows its reasoning.

Shocked and dismayed by this decision, Cameron & Kane, LLC immediately retained valuable co-counsel from the Lawyers’ Committee for Better Housing and Jenner & Block. Working together, we quickly drafted and filed a motion to reconsider the order arguing the judge had misinterpreted the law. After months of argument on the topic, ultimately Cameron & Kane, LLC and co-counsel successfully moved the Judge to reconsider their previous order and uphold the overwhelming majority of the KCRO as not preempted and enforceable.

Together with their client and invaluable co-counsel, Cameron & Kane, LLC is extremely proud to have preserved the KCRO as an enforceable source of tenants’ rights in Chicago. We remain committed to defending the KCRO should the defendant appeal.

These are the kinds of law firms that copyright defense lawyers like my Partner Scott Kane sometimes have to deal with.

Prenda law essentially produced its own pornography, uploaded it to Pirate Bay, attained the names of those who downloaded it via IP addresses, and then sued those individuals for doing so, sometimes pressuring defendants into quick settlements of several thousand dollars. This abuse of the legal system is far too common amongst so-called copyright trolls, and Cameron and Kane is committed to representing copyright defendants in these matters.

Today our firm announced at a press conference that we are representing several former employees of Bow Truss Coffee in a lawsuit against their former employer for violations of the federal fair Fair Labor Standards Act, The Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act, The Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. We were proud to be joined at our press conference today by Cook County Commissioner Chuy Garcia, State Senator Daniel Biss, and Aldermen Scott Waguespack and Ricardo Munoz. We will continue to provide information on this case as it develops. For press coverage, please see here, here and here.